Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.

I did read it and there is no problem.

No mention of "give way".

Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit.

All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law
at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone
else's fault if he gets run over.

If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User
B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could
have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if
A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could
reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is
just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is
utterly irrelevant.

You think that will be seen as a "knock-for-knock" situation by the
insurance companies? Isn't A likely to keep their no-claim bonus
intact while B is not?